Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+4cx350f\/j\'s\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+4cx350f\/j\'s\s*$/: 15 ]

Total 15 documents matching your query.

1. [Amps] 4cx350f/j's (score: 1): Author: PLoret1648@aol.com (PLoret1648@aol.com); Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 07:04:59 EST; Any of you fellas ever apply these to a project for amateur amplification? Is there any disadvantage to the 26.5 volts on the heater, or does it just heat quicker? Not much info on Rell's page via Ri; /archives//html/Amps/2002-11/msg00285.html (7,392 bytes)
2. [Amps] 4cx350f/j's (score: 1): Author: g8gsq@qsl.net (Steve Thompson); Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 14:48:57 -0000; Is heat I think the 26.5V suited the military's 24V nominal preferred supplies. As best I recall, the heater power is the same as in the 6V version, so the warm up time is the same. They go very nice; /archives//html/Amps/2002-11/msg00286.html (7,861 bytes)
3. [Amps] 4cx350f/j's (score: 1): Author: K6KWQ@aol.com (K6KWQ@aol.com); Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 10:03:48 EST; I find the biggest advantage the smaller Filament transformer and cheaper price on the tubes. -- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts -- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/; /archives//html/Amps/2002-11/msg00287.html (7,413 bytes)
4. [Amps] 4cx350f/j's (score: 1): Author: 2@vc.net (Rich); Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 07:36:47 -0800; The only diffference is the resistance of the heater, The W is the same. Military aircraft and motor vehicles often use 24 - 28V electric systems. 4, 4cx350_s can make 1500W in AB1. The input circuit; /archives//html/Amps/2002-11/msg00288.html (8,922 bytes)
5. [Amps] 4cx350f/j's (score: 1): Author: DF3KV@aol.com (DF3KV@aol.com); Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 11:17:27 EST; I why should thw Filament transformer be smaller? Wattage is slightly higher for the F-type... 73 Peter -- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts -- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- k; /archives//html/Amps/2002-11/msg00290.html (7,762 bytes)
6. [Amps] 4cx350f/j's (score: 1): Author: on4kj@skynet.be (on4kj); Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 20:39:24 -0000; cheaper Guess smaller should be interpreted as different. Jos -- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --; /archives//html/Amps/2002-11/msg00294.html (8,506 bytes)
7. [Amps] 4cx350f/j's (score: 1): Author: K6KWQ@aol.com (K6KWQ@aol.com); Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 17:00:48 EST; Less current, smaller wire, less metal, small physical size. -- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts -- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --; /archives//html/Amps/2002-11/msg00295.html (7,563 bytes)
8. [Amps] 4cx350f/j's (score: 1): Author: vk6apk@eon.net.au (Alek Petkovic); Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 06:24:06 +0800; I thought, same VA, therefore, same core, therefore same size.; /archives//html/Amps/2002-11/msg00297.html (8,118 bytes)
9. [Amps] 4cx350f/j's (score: 1): Author: 2@vc.net (Rich); Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 14:47:28 -0800; ** this is true, Alek. - Rich..., 805.386.3734, www.vcnet.com/measures.; /archives//html/Amps/2002-11/msg00298.html (7,741 bytes)
10. [Amps] 4cx350f/j's (score: 1): Author: mike.tubby@thorcom.co.uk (Michael J. Tubby B.Sc. (Hons) G8TIC); Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 23:00:33 -0000; More volts, more turns => same VA = same size Mike; /archives//html/Amps/2002-11/msg00299.html (7,884 bytes)
11. [Amps] 4cx350f/j's (score: 1): Author: on4kj@skynet.be (on4kj); Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 23:04:52 -0000; Hello Alex, Who doesn't know who is "La Palice " ......hi; /archives//html/Amps/2002-11/msg00300.html (8,806 bytes)
12. [Amps] 4cx350f/j's (score: 1): Author: K6KWQ@aol.com (K6KWQ@aol.com); Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 19:25:16 EST; Your overlooking the secondary wire size you need to compare, I have -- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts -- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --; /archives//html/Amps/2002-11/msg00302.html (7,569 bytes)
13. [Amps] 4cx350f/j's (score: 1): Author: mike.tubby@thorcom.co.uk (Michael J. Tubby B.Sc. (Hons) G8TIC); Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 00:47:10 -0000; Don't think so... The primary remains unchanged, as the for secondary with the '350FJ you need 26.5V @ 0.65A per tube while with the '350A you need 6.3V @ 2.8A - both about 17.5 watts (give or take).; /archives//html/Amps/2002-11/msg00303.html (8,713 bytes)
14. [Amps] 4cx350f/j's (score: 1): Author: stevek@jmr.com (Steve Katz); Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 07:39:40 -0800; [Steve Katz] The advantage of 4CX350Fs is that they're often found new surplus very inexpensively. I've used them for many years, can't tell any difference in operation between the 350F and a 250B,; /archives//html/Amps/2002-11/msg00308.html (8,468 bytes)
15. [Amps] 4cx350f/j's (score: 1): Author: 2@vc.net (Rich); Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 08:26:47 -0800; ** a friend who worked at Eimac said an extra half-minute was better. - Rich..., 805.386.3734, www.vcnet.com/measures.; /archives//html/Amps/2002-11/msg00309.html (8,184 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 15
Page: [1]